Standing instructions for your role

Working with Claude — CC BY 4.0

In lesson 1.4 you built a set of accuracy rules and had the choice to paste them once or make them permanent. This lesson is about the permanent version, taken a step further: not just “be accurate”, but a short standing brief that tells Claude who you are, what you’re doing, and how you want it to work — so every new conversation starts already tuned to your job instead of starting cold.

Think of it as a personal system prompt. You write it once, it sits quietly in the background, and it loads at the top of every chat without you lifting a finger. The accuracy rules from 1.4 are the floor. Your role brief is what you build on top.

Where it lives

In the Claude app this sits in your account settings, usually reached by clicking your initials in the lower-left corner and opening Settings, then looking for Instructions for Claude (an account-wide box that applies to all your conversations). Menu names and layout shift as the app updates, and there may be separate places for account-wide instructions versus per-project instructions, so treat the exact path as “confirm in-app / current docs” rather than fixed. Whether it’s included on every plan can change, so check that it’s available on yours in your settings or the current help docs.

One practical note: everything in this box loads with every message you send, so keep it tight. A page of focused instructions beats five pages of everything you can think of.

What to put in it

Aim for four things, in plain language:

1. Who you are and what you do. One or two lines. “I coordinate volunteers for a community food-rescue in Christchurch” tells Claude more useful context than a paragraph of adjectives.
2. The standing accuracy rules from 1.4 — or a trimmed version. Label claims by where they came from, say “I don’t know” first when that’s the truth, no invented citations.
3. Domain rules for your work. The things that are always true in your world: the country and its rules you operate under, terms you use, what “done” looks like, what must never be guessed.
4. Format and tone. How you want answers to arrive — short and direct, or worked through step by step; British spelling; no filler openings.

Here’s a worked example for someone doing the books for a small trades business:

I keep the accounts for a small building firm in New Zealand. I’m not an accountant.

Prioritise being accurate over being agreeable. Label factual claims: [KNOWN], [INFERRED], [COMMON], [GUESS]. Never state a figure, rule, or IRD/GST detail without a label. If you don’t know, say so on the first line.

New Zealand context: GST is 15%, our financial year and IRD rules apply. Never assume US or Australian tax rules. Anything about tax, employment law, or health and safety is general information only — flag it and tell me to check with our accountant or a professional before I act.

Give me the working, not just the answer, so I can check it. Short and direct. British spelling. Skip praise and “great question” openings.

Notice what that brief is doing. It fixes the country (so Claude stops defaulting to American assumptions), it puts a hard boundary around anything that could become tax or legal advice, and it asks for the working so the person can verify rather than trust. That last part matters: the brief keeps the judgment with you. It is general education, not legal or financial advice — for anything with real consequences, get proper professional counsel.

Iterating it

Your first version won’t be right, and it doesn’t need to be. Treat it as a living document.

The habit that works: when a conversation goes wrong in a way that keeps happening — Claude keeps padding answers, keeps assuming the wrong jurisdiction, keeps giving you ten options when you wanted one — don’t just fix it in the chat. Add a line to the standing brief so it’s fixed for next time too. Over a few weeks it settles into something that genuinely reflects how you work. Prune as well as add: if a rule never earns its place, cut it, because everything in there is costing you a little room in every message.

The anti-contrarian caveat, again

The same warning from 1.4 applies here, and it’s easier to trip over once instructions are permanent. If your brief leans hard on “be blunt, challenge me, lead with the counter-argument”, Claude can overshoot into reflexive disagreement — arguing with you even when you’re right, to look independent. That’s the mirror image of the flattery you were trying to kill, and it’s just as unreliable. You want something that won’t fold without a real reason and won’t pick a fight without one either. If you notice it disagreeing on reflex, that’s a line to soften in the brief.

Why this belongs in the course

A standing brief isn’t a shortcut. It’s how you stay in charge of a tool you use every day. You’ve decided, in advance and in writing, what Claude should assume, where it must stop, and how it should show its working — and it applies whether you’re paying attention that day or not. The output is still yours to review and own. This just means you’re directing from a considered position every time, instead of re-explaining yourself from scratch and hoping you remembered the important bits.